However, I suggest you actually learn what Islam teaches its adherents. ISIS have misinterpreted nothing, they are practicing Islam *exactly* as Mohammed was said to have practiced it. Tolerating an evil is an evil. Learn was Islam and Sharia are as Muslims are taught to understand them, not the garbage that is fed to us under the famous 'taqiyya', 'kitman', 'muruna' doctrines (ie. in Islam is is not only permitted to lie to kaffir if it advances Islam, it is obligatory).
Thank goodness Islam is "The Religion of Peace" and ISIS isn't following Sharia. I'm sure ISIS will "turn the other cheek" because Islam follows the "Golden Rule" and preaches "forgiveness", and the equality of men with women, and believers and unbelievers, and separation of mosque and State, right? right?/sarc
Too bad for these girls that Islam actually means "Submission" (supposedly to Dushara/Allah, but actually to the Arab Emperor the Caliph), and Sharia preaches no mercy, women are worth less than men and the absolute property of either he father or husband, and unbeliever/infidel "kufir" (which is a pejorative term similar to the Nazi "Untermenchen" or racist "n$gg3r") is subhuman and worthy of death for not accepting the Islamic political order across the globe (commanded by Koran 9:29 to be implemented over time by all Muslims).
The performance problem are the OpenGL drivers made by Apple.
At the end of the last year I brought one of the new 'trashcan' Mac Pros. I opted to put in the fastest GPUs available, dual-D700 workstation cards. I did this because I'm working on a modern, multi-threaded, cross-platform jet combat simulator. What I found is that the performance of the Apple OpenGL drivers is about half the performance of the ATI drivers for the same hardware (if Bootcamp is used with Windows). This is very disappointing from Apple, and unfortunately since they are a monoculture for their hardware, there are not alternate drivers for Mac OS X (which I enjoy developing in).
So while I think we should heap scorn on companies that do crappy ports from consoles, in this particular instance the benchmarks I have run show that the Apple OpenGL performance for their expensive flag-ship offering is not even close to ATI drivers for the same hardware.
I know the real Apple fanbois will get in a lather for me saying this, but Apple's obsessive need to 'control the user experience' leads them to build everything themselves, and they suck in this case. I wish they'd just outsource the OpenGL drivers to the GPU manufacturer just like they eventually outsourced Java to Oracle (who produced much more timely and better optimized updates to the JDK than Apple ever did).
Is this the same Paul Ehrlich who in the 1970's said we'd all be dead from overpopulation and starvation by the year 2000? why does anyone still listen to this sensationalist muppet who always gets it so wrong?
Energy costs will go up by a factor of three. That has HUGE flow-on effects as our whole modern civilization depends on cheap energy. In Germany, energy has become costly due to 'Green Energy' generation and the cost has meant that old people cannot afford to put their heating on and some of them die. Raising energy costs has consequences, some good, some lethal.
What happens to houses not in the sun belt? who pays for all the expensive PV installations? people are struggling to make ends meet and you want to impose additional burdens on them based on the unproven AGW hypothesis? (which is actually getting closer to being falsified with each passing year based on the global satellite observations [rather than the extremely problematic adjusted surface recordings]).
My point is that it is neither cost-free nor simple nor even scientifically necessary. Ungrounded Lightning makes an excellent case.
Not so, otherwise why else would I get a huge amount of down mod votes for pointing out this? I have been shocked to discover how closed-minded Slashdotters are if you go against the prevailing Cultural Marxist memes with which we have all been marinated in for our entire lives.
Expect a lot of violence this year to start serious enforcement of Sharia speech codes this year:
Stephen Coughlin Red Pill Brief #1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Intelligence Officer Major Stephen Coughlin was kicked out the Pentagon by Muslim Brotherhood affiliates for spelling out exactly what the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the far more dangerous 'good cop' against the misdirection of jihadi 'bad cop' in the Third Great Jihad against Enlightenment Civilization) was up to. Think about it, a US Army Intelligence Officer was kicked out of the Pentagon on the advice of jihadis. And most Slashdotters not only will not listen, they will mod you down with great prejudice if you tell the truth about what is going on, the Red-Green Axis (Statist Collectivist-Islamist Axis).
The elites always have one set of criteria for themselves, and one for the 'common people'. That's why you can be invited to the White House 80 times even if you owe millions in taxes - if you have the 'right' (that is to say, Left) politics. The media will cover for you.
Whether you like Hillary Clinton or not it is clear she is extremely corrupt and allowed foreign organizations to pay for influence and favors. But because she has the 'right' (that is to say, Alinskyite Left) sentiments then the media circle the wagons and protect her - while viciously demonizing anyone who wants a full investigation.
You are safe. Dontcha know the Iranians are Obama's best buddies now ? - because he is so obsessed with his legacy in history he is prepared to completely submit to the Iranians (reduce sanctions, hand over cash, and allow enrichment for what is clearly a coupled ICBM and nuclear weapons program in the hands of Twelver apocalyptic religious whackjobs) thinking he is doing a "Nixon goes to China" breaktrhough, when it is much more like a Neville Chamberlain "Peace in our time" misjudgement (that history is almost certainly going to revile). But the media again defends the madness.
The Current Administration does not consider the Muslim Brotherhood its enemy. That is why Obama installed the MB in Egypt, before the Egyptians kicked them out, and why your State Department and White House continue to try and get the Muslim Brotherhood installed. It is also why Secretary of State Clinton ordered the bombing of Libya (to advance your "allies" the MB in Libya) and why the US has pumped over $11 Billion of weapons for MB-aligned groups through Qatar.
Why the US has chosen this strategy of appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood is explained by Barry Rubin:
"Barry Rubin: Assessing Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood" [30 mins] https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You have nothing to fear, amigo. In fact, people like Major Stephen Coughlin were chucked out of the Pentagon for pointing out the doctrines underlying the Muslim Brotherhood's actions. So if your own Government will throw out intelligence officers for pointing out what the Muslim Brotherhood are doing, then I think you are pretty safe. You should sweat about why your Government is doing this, though - to me it seems completely misguided in their strategy of appeasement. Hell, one of your CIA directors called the Muslim Brotherhood a "secular" group - ROFL! Your country can withstand a lot, but not the incredible incompetence of the CIA, TSA and White House/National Security Authority who seeks to appease those who covertly wish to destroy the Republic "by its own miserable hand" (cf. the Holy Land Foundatation Trial).
Bye bye America. It was nice knowing you. The World is not going to like what comes next.
You are correct, the models current miss some very important energy exchanges.
Professor Murray Salby (who literally wrote the *graduate-level* textbook) is an expert on the physics of atmospheric processes and points out what is wrong with the models, and then proceeds to do the math which matches observations very well:
Slashdotters interested in understanding more about the models and the math behind them will find this video an excellent primer on climate observations and modelling.
Has anything ever overridden the Milankovitch Cycle ever before? I would say an emphatic yes, with an eye on the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
De-industrializing the West (which is the clear policy goal arising from AGW-proponents) does not make sense until those other factors are understood - especially as we see the two-decade "pause" in warming, and the warming rate around 1/3 of original IPCCC predictions. We have time to get this right without destroying economies, plunging billions into poverty, and hysterically making energy so expensive it kills thousands of the old and sick unnecessarily.
Now we know we have more time, wouldn't you agree that we should await more evidence in a calm and rational manner, without radically re-organizing our civilization along neo-Marxist wealth redistributionist and central-planning lines?
Hi David. In the American usage, "Conservative" means "Classic Liberal" or "Supporter of Individual Liberty over State Power". Yes, I understand that the Statist Collectivists (particularly in the mainstream media) try to re-define this usage to mean "Social Conservative", but they are not actually the same thing.
You do not have to agree with the definition, you merely have to accept that this is the definition that the American Classic Liberals use (despite the name being assigned by their enemies, the Statist Collectivists aka "Progressives").
The Nazis were tightly involved with private companies, which is the opposite of Socialism.
This is the very definition of Far Left Socialism (aka "Fascism") - the means of production remain in private hands while the State controls the fruits of production.
This is in contrast to the definition of Extreme Left Socialism (aka "Communism") - the means of production are controlled by the State and the fruit of production are also controlled by the State.
Please watch the video that explains it all (yes, I understand this goes against the neo-Marxist indoctrination the Statist Collectivists have been feeding you your whole life, but these are the economic definitions that match reality):
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian" [32 mins]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I think David you are confusing Enlightenment-period use of the terms with the modern definitions. Here's a handy spectrum of the modern usage, which shows the State Power vs Individual Liberty spectrum: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8b...
I also think you are confusing the political social spectrum with the State power one. In answer to your question, absolute monarchs have complete State Power (which *necessarily* means Individual Liberty is curtailed), they also own the most of means of production (land and monopoly grants) and control the fruits of production (exchequer). That means on the State Power vs Individual Liberty spectrum absolute monarchs are either Extreme Left or Far Left, depending on the specifics of their reign (French monarches would be further Left/Statist than English ones, for example). However, on the social spectrum both French and English monarchs are usually rightward (which is what you are thinking about - but we are talking about State power here, and not gay rights, k?). But on the social spectrum Prince Charles of England is clearly Left of Center.
So, I hope you can now see on the ***State Power vs Individual Liberty*** political spectrum (as well as the economic one) that the National Socialists are Far Left and the US Classic Liberals (aka "Conservatives"/fiscal conservatives) are Mid Right.
I wish I could mod you +1 Insightful. The socialists need people to "look at the squirrel" - they need to distract people with an enemy while they pilfer from your pockets using the threat of State coercion to do this. Most people don't understand this, and instead they follow what Big Brother has to say (all the while thinking they are the "enlightened" ones - but they are merely zombies advancing the agenda of the Big State sociopaths).
When I make a post like this which goes against the Cultural Marxist narrative it costs me a LOT of karma. So I'm very pleased to see that at least some of the smarter Slashdotters get it - and can see through the century-long (and continuing) project to change the culture and increase the State's ability to regulate any aspect of your life it chooses, as well as take any money it chooses (at the point of a gun).
If it is not voluntary then it is immoral is a good rule of thumb. The Free Market is voluntary, while socialist Central Planning is not. Charity is voluntary, while socialist wealth confiscation is not. Romance is voluntary, while rape is not. The sociopaths want people to never wake up to this fact - so they slander those who oppose their agenda.
You don't seem to understand the science being debated at all. Everyone agrees on the Carbon Cycle and that there is a lag before the biosphere can soak up all the CO2 that humans produce (eventually plants will grow enough to soak most of it up, but the rate we produce it is faster than plants can grow to keep up - since the system will settle in a equilibrium in the long-term).
What is debated is whether increasing CO2 has an increasing effect on temperature : in the lab CO2 has a diminishing non-linear effect. Below 100 ppm CO2 has the most effect and is essential for life in the sense that it stops the planet from freezing. No one debate this. But as you add more and more CO2 it has less and less effect on changing the temperature, at least under lab conditions.
Furthermore, there are far greater effects than CO2. The effect of water vapor is not well modelled and could have a much greater effect than CO2.
If you want to understand some of the actual science by a guy who literally wrote the text on this stuff, then I suggest you follow the mathematical explanation in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Once you are up to speed with the parts of the subject that are being debated then we can talk. At the moment you are attacking a strawman because you don't understand the points of contentious science. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain, but we already understand your points and have moved beyond that - we understand the Carbon Cycle, we have more advanced understanding of the scientific processes and the limitations of computer models and are debating those things (especially when the computer models do not match reality as shown by the satellite observations).
Dude, Conservatives and Libertarians are "Individualists" who want smaller State than socialists. The Statist Collectivists are the socialists, and National Socialists are socialists (go an look at their 25 point program, which is completely socialist).
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian" [32 mins] https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I understand that so many of my fellow freedom-loving Slashdotters do not yet understand this (no matter where they think they are on the State Power vs Individual Liberty political spectrum), because the modern control-freak inheritors of the National Socialist and Soviet Socialist agendas do not want you to understand what is really going on. But here is the most important thing about politics, "In order for the State to gain power, Individuals must lose power". The National Socialists were Big State, and Far Left. Please don't fall for this simplest of Jedi Mind Tricks folks.
Here's the most useful diagram that shows the political spectrum in terms of State Power vs Individual Liberty: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8b...
To claim that conservatives are "Hitler Youth Lite" not only fulfills Godwin's Law, it also show you have fallen from the disinformation from the Extreme Left (Communists) who call the Far Left (National Socialists) "Far Right" simply because *everyone* is to the right of communists (and the mainstream media sympathize with this false narrative). The further right you go on the political spectrum the more you wish individuals had power and the state does not, until you go through the true Far Right (Libertarianism) and go to the Extreme Right (anarchy - where the State has no power at all).
Here's the simple Rule of Thumb for y'all:
More State power means further Leftward on the political spectrum until the State has all the power and the individual has none (Communism)
Less State power means further Rightward on the political spectrum until the Individual and full liberty and the State has no power (Anarchy)
You simple choose how much State power you'd like to trade off against Individual Liberty.
For the "Progressive" control-freaks who need to indoctrinate you, it is "All politics, all the time".
They think they are "enlightening" you by pushing their brand of Statist Collectivism until you go full zombie and hand over your hard earned cash and submit to their ever-burgeoning bureaucracy ("for your own good", of course).
Bring back the Tech and banish Soulskill and timothy as propagandists.
LOLs. Seriously, just look at the satellite data, and read what I said with an open mind. Given the warming trend we see started at the end of the Little Ice Age two centuries ago how is what we are seeing today unexpected in any way? and once you factor in the 1930s Dust Bowl and no statistically significant warming since 1998 is it our scientific duty to remain skeptical as we work things out. Computer models never trump real observations.
Thank you very, very much. It burns a LOT of karma to try and speak the truth as I understand it. My karma is so badly hit by the censorious folk that it takes me ages to mod again. So thanks for taking the time to post some appreciation:)
Your post is so false the stupid burns me http://www.tempdatareview.org/
You clearly are neither objective nor are you systematic in investigating the data. Look at the observations, because your statements are completely false and show you never even looked at the data nor did you consider the evidence against the AGW hypothesis. You are completely anti-scientific in your approach (by the way, you are talking to an astrophysicist who considered doing climate science but didn't because it was not nearly rigorous enough, you have zero idea who you are talking to).
seriously, just fuck off.
Boom! you just lost right there. You showed how emotional and irrational you are about this subject/ It's bad enough you were too lazy to look at the actual data, but then you had to go off the deep end. This does make sense, when one is not in possession of actual facts one has to resorted to emotional arguments - which is what you just did. In science this is an epic fail (although it does work on the general public who simply don't know better).
you are the equivalent of a drunk in a bar questioning Einstein. Or more accurately, several thousand Einsteins.
(and seriously, who modded that bullshit insightful?)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Look at the data ! listen to the criticisms of the data! use the Scientific Method instead of populist appeals to 'consensus'. Ask Copernicus, Gallileo or Chandrasekhar just what the worth of 'consensus' is - because appealing to consensus is only done by those who don't have the observational data to make their case, and AGW does not have the observational data required which is why they appeal to consensus and hope that people don't understand how science is supposed to work - which you clearly do not.
The non-estimated data does NOT support AGW. Observations have been diverging from predictions for 18 years, with the computer models predicting rates of heating increase that have not been happening. Look at the damn observations, especially the superior satellite ones !
ps. and stop being a jerk to hide you ignorance of the actual data and counter-evidence against AGW. It is just lame and should be beneath all Slashdotters.
Thanks for your post. So you are saying there is no natural climate variability because the climate "stabilized to what was the current climate between 10 and 6 thousand years ago". Please define "stabilized". The Roman and Medieval Warm Periods appear to have been warmer than now, did the Roman SUVs cause that? or perhaps "stabilization" is due to sampling bias from the proxies we used.
Hi, physicist here (although I was an astrophysicist and not a climatologist). The 'feedback' effects included in the climate models are not well known - which is why best guesses are put into the simulations. The climate is a very complex and ****chaotic*** system that even the honest experts say is not as well understood as people think, and the chaotic effects limit the predictability (sure, expectation values for long-term predictions remove some of the effects if chaos, but who has quantified how much of one the most famous chaotic systems on the planet).
Have you ever seen a climate model that has made a prediction that has matched observation? I have not seen one yet, and there have been hundreds of simulations with an enormous amount of time made available on some of the most powerful computer systems on the planet. And yet, the simulations match reality so badly that I'm embarrassed for the authors who published. I used to write such complex mufti-dimensional software models and it is completely bizarre to be that people still push them as having any predictive value at this stage when even their short term (decadal) predictions have been so far off-base, and the anomalies cannot be explained.
So please. watch the video I linked to, as it shows some of the important factors that are omitted from the models. The Scientific Method requires you to evaluate every claim objectively, especially counter-claims that can falsify a theory. This is what I was required to do, and it seems to me there is a strong and increasing case against AGW based on the observational data (and the fact the simulations are so woeful they diverge from the data massively):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally. At the current rate of melt (159 GT/year) Antarctica will take around a quarter of a million years to melt down (given its ice mass of approx 26400000 GT). From the historical perspective this seems to be a particualrly SLOW rate of natural melting.
Over the past few millenia we've seen the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and Little Ice Age. We are now recovering from the Little Ice Age which is why temperatures have been steadily increasing since the end of the 18th Century. Many AGW proponents (eg. Michael Mann) don't seem to want to know about the Little Ice Age nor that we would expect to see warming from natural climatic variability after it ended, exactly as we do see.
As far as I can tell these are all NATURAL processes. The AGW global warming skeptics are not denying that the world is warming, because it clearly has been since the Little Ice Age. All they are saying is that human CO2 emission is not the PRIMARY cause. This makes sense once one understands that CO2 has a diminishing non-linear effect on longwave radiation re-emission. The 'Greenhouse Effect' is essential for life, but most of the effect of CO2 occurs below 100 ppm and the effect starts dropping off after that. Note that below 150 ppm plants (and thus, complex life) cannot survive. As CO2 increases there is a positive effect on plant growth - and when the World was at 5000 ppm (we're around 400 ppm today) not only did life exist, it thrived.
But even if AGW were true, how would giving politicians complete power to regulate every aspect of your life, and to take all the income from your hard work and redistribute as they saw fit have any impact on the climate on a global scale? it just doesn't make sense if you think about it for more than a millisecond.
How much evidence is required before denialist clowns will be convinced that Global Warming is a thing, and it is almost certainly Our Fault?
No time at all, all you have to do is provide the scientific evidence for this. At the moment the AGW proponents have to talk about "consensus" because the actual observational data does not support the AGW hypothesis at all. In fact, the true 'deniers' are the AGW proponents, who refuse to accept that the data does not support their hypothesis and a new hypothesis must be generated - in accordance with the Scientific Method.
Big Leftist Conspiracy,
Does it not seem strange that the satellite data (which is not 'adjusted' to match the theory like the increasingly estimate surface coverage data is) does not support AGW and yet the media narrative is relentless that AGW is 'settled science'. The problem is not whether AGW is true or not (on evidence, the theory seems set to be falsified at this stage), but that the media has a narrative which refuses objective reporting of the counter-evidence. This should trouble everyone who seeks to perform honest science. There is also the problem that all the predictions are based on computer models whose prior predictions have utterly failed to match observations
For those interested in the physics from a guy who literally wrote the (advanced, graduate-level) textbook on atmospheric dynamics you may wish to see Dr Murray Salby's explanation of where the climate models are wrong (warning: you need reasonably advanced mathematics/physics to follow the lecture - so only fellow science Jedi need watch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [67 mins]
Based on the observational evidence and the historical record, it seems the only sane position to take at this moment is skepticism of the AGW theory. No one is denying the scientific effect of atmospheric CO2, or that the Earth is warming - what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission (vs the massive CO2 emission from the microbial biosphere, for example) and debate about the limits of predictive accuracy of computer models of a very complex and chaotic system.
As a technical writer the best and fastest system I have seen for writing manuals is called "Information Mapping". It is a system for structuring technical content so that a user can quickly navigate to the thing they need without having to read the whole manual first. It is designed to cope with the limits of human working memory, and get tasks completely quickly and accurately.
1) We now know it was invented by*politician* Caliph Abd al-Malik, not "Mohammed"
2) It's goal is to establish the political system of "Sharia", and Muslims don't care about your personal faith (ie. dhimmitude) as long as you are part of their political system
3) Despite the mythology, Islam is fairly close to a Mafia system. The Mafia may profess to be Catholic but that does not make their crime system religious.
Islam is NOT a personal faith, and it never claims to be. Because of this, it is a POLITICAL SYSTEM.
You can get angry all you want and swear your head off to demonstrate how irrational you are when discussing this topic. But you are still wrong.
Do you know about the *actual* history of early Islam? the political history that involves Caliph Abd al-Malik? would you like me to provide a link for you? (note: Islamic orthodoxy hides the true origins of Islam, because no-one would remain in its totalitarian political system if they understood the superstitious aspects are completely fabricated as part of a POLITICAL system of control).
In Islam there is no separation of Mosque and State. This is different to Christianity, Judaism etc but most people in the West don't understand this. They think Islam is some kind of personal faith, but it is not.
Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology with a sprinkling of badly-plagiarized superstition sprinkled on top. It is political because Islam asserts authority over believers AND kuffar (a derogatory term translated as 'infidel' but closer in intent to 'n*gg3r' and applied to all non-Muslims).
Unfortunately, like most Slashdotters, you think you understand Islam and thus ignorantly swat away the argument of someone who correctly deduced that Islam is completely political. This is a bad habit and you should stop it. Please understand that you know very little about Islam and would do well to listen to those that understand it - particularly the Islamic deceptions and political nature (and for real Jedi, the fact that Islamic orthodoxy is completely false and was invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik for *political reasons* [ie. Arab Imperialism] and not Mohammed as Islam falsely claims).
So I would suggest you understand the limitations of your knowledge and *listen* to those who do understand Islam (which is the most evil and deceptive political ideology that man has ever inflicted on other men ). Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks Keith, and sound advice, in general.
However, I suggest you actually learn what Islam teaches its adherents. ISIS have misinterpreted nothing, they are practicing Islam *exactly* as Mohammed was said to have practiced it. Tolerating an evil is an evil. Learn was Islam and Sharia are as Muslims are taught to understand them, not the garbage that is fed to us under the famous 'taqiyya', 'kitman', 'muruna' doctrines (ie. in Islam is is not only permitted to lie to kaffir if it advances Islam, it is obligatory).
Here's a place to start understanding what Islam *actually* teaches:
http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/...
Thank goodness Islam is "The Religion of Peace" and ISIS isn't following Sharia. I'm sure ISIS will "turn the other cheek" because Islam follows the "Golden Rule" and preaches "forgiveness", and the equality of men with women, and believers and unbelievers, and separation of mosque and State, right? right? /sarc
Too bad for these girls that Islam actually means "Submission" (supposedly to Dushara/Allah, but actually to the Arab Emperor the Caliph), and Sharia preaches no mercy, women are worth less than men and the absolute property of either he father or husband, and unbeliever/infidel "kufir" (which is a pejorative term similar to the Nazi "Untermenchen" or racist "n$gg3r") is subhuman and worthy of death for not accepting the Islamic political order across the globe (commanded by Koran 9:29 to be implemented over time by all Muslims).
Run girls! run! and be safe.
The performance problem are the OpenGL drivers made by Apple.
At the end of the last year I brought one of the new 'trashcan' Mac Pros. I opted to put in the fastest GPUs available, dual-D700 workstation cards. I did this because I'm working on a modern, multi-threaded, cross-platform jet combat simulator. What I found is that the performance of the Apple OpenGL drivers is about half the performance of the ATI drivers for the same hardware (if Bootcamp is used with Windows). This is very disappointing from Apple, and unfortunately since they are a monoculture for their hardware, there are not alternate drivers for Mac OS X (which I enjoy developing in).
So while I think we should heap scorn on companies that do crappy ports from consoles, in this particular instance the benchmarks I have run show that the Apple OpenGL performance for their expensive flag-ship offering is not even close to ATI drivers for the same hardware.
I know the real Apple fanbois will get in a lather for me saying this, but Apple's obsessive need to 'control the user experience' leads them to build everything themselves, and they suck in this case. I wish they'd just outsource the OpenGL drivers to the GPU manufacturer just like they eventually outsourced Java to Oracle (who produced much more timely and better optimized updates to the JDK than Apple ever did).
Is this the same Paul Ehrlich who in the 1970's said we'd all be dead from overpopulation and starvation by the year 2000? why does anyone still listen to this sensationalist muppet who always gets it so wrong?
Energy costs will go up by a factor of three. That has HUGE flow-on effects as our whole modern civilization depends on cheap energy. In Germany, energy has become costly due to 'Green Energy' generation and the cost has meant that old people cannot afford to put their heating on and some of them die. Raising energy costs has consequences, some good, some lethal.
What happens to houses not in the sun belt? who pays for all the expensive PV installations? people are struggling to make ends meet and you want to impose additional burdens on them based on the unproven AGW hypothesis? (which is actually getting closer to being falsified with each passing year based on the global satellite observations [rather than the extremely problematic adjusted surface recordings]).
My point is that it is neither cost-free nor simple nor even scientifically necessary. Ungrounded Lightning makes an excellent case.
Not so, otherwise why else would I get a huge amount of down mod votes for pointing out this? I have been shocked to discover how closed-minded Slashdotters are if you go against the prevailing Cultural Marxist memes with which we have all been marinated in for our entire lives.
Expect a lot of violence this year to start serious enforcement of Sharia speech codes this year:
Stephen Coughlin Red Pill Brief #1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Intelligence Officer Major Stephen Coughlin was kicked out the Pentagon by Muslim Brotherhood affiliates for spelling out exactly what the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (the far more dangerous 'good cop' against the misdirection of jihadi 'bad cop' in the Third Great Jihad against Enlightenment Civilization) was up to. Think about it, a US Army Intelligence Officer was kicked out of the Pentagon on the advice of jihadis. And most Slashdotters not only will not listen, they will mod you down with great prejudice if you tell the truth about what is going on, the Red-Green Axis (Statist Collectivist-Islamist Axis).
The elites always have one set of criteria for themselves, and one for the 'common people'. That's why you can be invited to the White House 80 times even if you owe millions in taxes - if you have the 'right' (that is to say, Left) politics. The media will cover for you.
Whether you like Hillary Clinton or not it is clear she is extremely corrupt and allowed foreign organizations to pay for influence and favors. But because she has the 'right' (that is to say, Alinskyite Left) sentiments then the media circle the wagons and protect her - while viciously demonizing anyone who wants a full investigation.
You are safe. Dontcha know the Iranians are Obama's best buddies now ? - because he is so obsessed with his legacy in history he is prepared to completely submit to the Iranians (reduce sanctions, hand over cash, and allow enrichment for what is clearly a coupled ICBM and nuclear weapons program in the hands of Twelver apocalyptic religious whackjobs) thinking he is doing a "Nixon goes to China" breaktrhough, when it is much more like a Neville Chamberlain "Peace in our time" misjudgement (that history is almost certainly going to revile). But the media again defends the madness.
Or did you need to namedrop some more?
The Current Administration does not consider the Muslim Brotherhood its enemy. That is why Obama installed the MB in Egypt, before the Egyptians kicked them out, and why your State Department and White House continue to try and get the Muslim Brotherhood installed. It is also why Secretary of State Clinton ordered the bombing of Libya (to advance your "allies" the MB in Libya) and why the US has pumped over $11 Billion of weapons for MB-aligned groups through Qatar.
Why the US has chosen this strategy of appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood is explained by Barry Rubin:
"Barry Rubin: Assessing Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood" [30 mins]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You have nothing to fear, amigo. In fact, people like Major Stephen Coughlin were chucked out of the Pentagon for pointing out the doctrines underlying the Muslim Brotherhood's actions. So if your own Government will throw out intelligence officers for pointing out what the Muslim Brotherhood are doing, then I think you are pretty safe. You should sweat about why your Government is doing this, though - to me it seems completely misguided in their strategy of appeasement. Hell, one of your CIA directors called the Muslim Brotherhood a "secular" group - ROFL! Your country can withstand a lot, but not the incredible incompetence of the CIA, TSA and White House/National Security Authority who seeks to appease those who covertly wish to destroy the Republic "by its own miserable hand" (cf. the Holy Land Foundatation Trial).
Bye bye America. It was nice knowing you. The World is not going to like what comes next.
You are correct, the models current miss some very important energy exchanges.
Professor Murray Salby (who literally wrote the *graduate-level* textbook) is an expert on the physics of atmospheric processes and points out what is wrong with the models, and then proceeds to do the math which matches observations very well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Slashdotters interested in understanding more about the models and the math behind them will find this video an excellent primer on climate observations and modelling.
Thanks for elaborating.
Has anything ever overridden the Milankovitch Cycle ever before? I would say an emphatic yes, with an eye on the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.
De-industrializing the West (which is the clear policy goal arising from AGW-proponents) does not make sense until those other factors are understood - especially as we see the two-decade "pause" in warming, and the warming rate around 1/3 of original IPCCC predictions. We have time to get this right without destroying economies, plunging billions into poverty, and hysterically making energy so expensive it kills thousands of the old and sick unnecessarily.
Now we know we have more time, wouldn't you agree that we should await more evidence in a calm and rational manner, without radically re-organizing our civilization along neo-Marxist wealth redistributionist and central-planning lines?
Hi David. In the American usage, "Conservative" means "Classic Liberal" or "Supporter of Individual Liberty over State Power". Yes, I understand that the Statist Collectivists (particularly in the mainstream media) try to re-define this usage to mean "Social Conservative", but they are not actually the same thing.
You do not have to agree with the definition, you merely have to accept that this is the definition that the American Classic Liberals use (despite the name being assigned by their enemies, the Statist Collectivists aka "Progressives").
The Nazis were tightly involved with private companies, which is the opposite of Socialism.
This is the very definition of Far Left Socialism (aka "Fascism") - the means of production remain in private hands while the State controls the fruits of production.
This is in contrast to the definition of Extreme Left Socialism (aka "Communism") - the means of production are controlled by the State and the fruit of production are also controlled by the State.
Please watch the video that explains it all (yes, I understand this goes against the neo-Marxist indoctrination the Statist Collectivists have been feeding you your whole life, but these are the economic definitions that match reality):
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian" [32 mins] https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
I think David you are confusing Enlightenment-period use of the terms with the modern definitions. Here's a handy spectrum of the modern usage, which shows the State Power vs Individual Liberty spectrum:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8b...
I also think you are confusing the political social spectrum with the State power one. In answer to your question, absolute monarchs have complete State Power (which *necessarily* means Individual Liberty is curtailed), they also own the most of means of production (land and monopoly grants) and control the fruits of production (exchequer). That means on the State Power vs Individual Liberty spectrum absolute monarchs are either Extreme Left or Far Left, depending on the specifics of their reign (French monarches would be further Left/Statist than English ones, for example). However, on the social spectrum both French and English monarchs are usually rightward (which is what you are thinking about - but we are talking about State power here, and not gay rights, k?). But on the social spectrum Prince Charles of England is clearly Left of Center.
So, I hope you can now see on the ***State Power vs Individual Liberty*** political spectrum (as well as the economic one) that the National Socialists are Far Left and the US Classic Liberals (aka "Conservatives"/fiscal conservatives) are Mid Right.
I wish I could mod you +1 Insightful. The socialists need people to "look at the squirrel" - they need to distract people with an enemy while they pilfer from your pockets using the threat of State coercion to do this. Most people don't understand this, and instead they follow what Big Brother has to say (all the while thinking they are the "enlightened" ones - but they are merely zombies advancing the agenda of the Big State sociopaths).
When I make a post like this which goes against the Cultural Marxist narrative it costs me a LOT of karma. So I'm very pleased to see that at least some of the smarter Slashdotters get it - and can see through the century-long (and continuing) project to change the culture and increase the State's ability to regulate any aspect of your life it chooses, as well as take any money it chooses (at the point of a gun).
If it is not voluntary then it is immoral is a good rule of thumb. The Free Market is voluntary, while socialist Central Planning is not. Charity is voluntary, while socialist wealth confiscation is not. Romance is voluntary, while rape is not. The sociopaths want people to never wake up to this fact - so they slander those who oppose their agenda.
Sure, use more iterations.
No. But your post seems to be a Monte Carlo-based implementation.
You don't seem to understand the science being debated at all. Everyone agrees on the Carbon Cycle and that there is a lag before the biosphere can soak up all the CO2 that humans produce (eventually plants will grow enough to soak most of it up, but the rate we produce it is faster than plants can grow to keep up - since the system will settle in a equilibrium in the long-term).
What is debated is whether increasing CO2 has an increasing effect on temperature : in the lab CO2 has a diminishing non-linear effect. Below 100 ppm CO2 has the most effect and is essential for life in the sense that it stops the planet from freezing. No one debate this. But as you add more and more CO2 it has less and less effect on changing the temperature, at least under lab conditions.
Furthermore, there are far greater effects than CO2. The effect of water vapor is not well modelled and could have a much greater effect than CO2.
If you want to understand some of the actual science by a guy who literally wrote the text on this stuff, then I suggest you follow the mathematical explanation in the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Once you are up to speed with the parts of the subject that are being debated then we can talk. At the moment you are attacking a strawman because you don't understand the points of contentious science. Thanks for taking the time to try and explain, but we already understand your points and have moved beyond that - we understand the Carbon Cycle, we have more advanced understanding of the scientific processes and the limitations of computer models and are debating those things (especially when the computer models do not match reality as shown by the satellite observations).
Dude, Conservatives and Libertarians are "Individualists" who want smaller State than socialists. The Statist Collectivists are the socialists, and National Socialists are socialists (go an look at their 25 point program, which is completely socialist).
"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian" [32 mins]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I understand that so many of my fellow freedom-loving Slashdotters do not yet understand this (no matter where they think they are on the State Power vs Individual Liberty political spectrum), because the modern control-freak inheritors of the National Socialist and Soviet Socialist agendas do not want you to understand what is really going on. But here is the most important thing about politics, "In order for the State to gain power, Individuals must lose power". The National Socialists were Big State, and Far Left. Please don't fall for this simplest of Jedi Mind Tricks folks.
Here's the most useful diagram that shows the political spectrum in terms of State Power vs Individual Liberty:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_TI8b...
To claim that conservatives are "Hitler Youth Lite" not only fulfills Godwin's Law, it also show you have fallen from the disinformation from the Extreme Left (Communists) who call the Far Left (National Socialists) "Far Right" simply because *everyone* is to the right of communists (and the mainstream media sympathize with this false narrative). The further right you go on the political spectrum the more you wish individuals had power and the state does not, until you go through the true Far Right (Libertarianism) and go to the Extreme Right (anarchy - where the State has no power at all).
Here's the simple Rule of Thumb for y'all:
More State power means further Leftward on the political spectrum until the State has all the power and the individual has none (Communism)
Less State power means further Rightward on the political spectrum until the Individual and full liberty and the State has no power (Anarchy)
You simple choose how much State power you'd like to trade off against Individual Liberty.
For the "Progressive" control-freaks who need to indoctrinate you, it is "All politics, all the time".
They think they are "enlightening" you by pushing their brand of Statist Collectivism until you go full zombie and hand over your hard earned cash and submit to their ever-burgeoning bureaucracy ("for your own good", of course).
Bring back the Tech and banish Soulskill and timothy as propagandists.
LOLs. Seriously, just look at the satellite data, and read what I said with an open mind. Given the warming trend we see started at the end of the Little Ice Age two centuries ago how is what we are seeing today unexpected in any way? and once you factor in the 1930s Dust Bowl and no statistically significant warming since 1998 is it our scientific duty to remain skeptical as we work things out. Computer models never trump real observations.
Thank you very, very much. It burns a LOT of karma to try and speak the truth as I understand it. My karma is so badly hit by the censorious folk that it takes me ages to mod again. So thanks for taking the time to post some appreciation :)
Your post is so false the stupid burns me
http://www.tempdatareview.org/
You clearly are neither objective nor are you systematic in investigating the data. Look at the observations, because your statements are completely false and show you never even looked at the data nor did you consider the evidence against the AGW hypothesis. You are completely anti-scientific in your approach (by the way, you are talking to an astrophysicist who considered doing climate science but didn't because it was not nearly rigorous enough, you have zero idea who you are talking to).
seriously, just fuck off.
Boom! you just lost right there. You showed how emotional and irrational you are about this subject/ It's bad enough you were too lazy to look at the actual data, but then you had to go off the deep end. This does make sense, when one is not in possession of actual facts one has to resorted to emotional arguments - which is what you just did. In science this is an epic fail (although it does work on the general public who simply don't know better).
you are the equivalent of a drunk in a bar questioning Einstein. Or more accurately, several thousand Einsteins. (and seriously, who modded that bullshit insightful?)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
Look at the data ! listen to the criticisms of the data! use the Scientific Method instead of populist appeals to 'consensus'. Ask Copernicus, Gallileo or Chandrasekhar just what the worth of 'consensus' is - because appealing to consensus is only done by those who don't have the observational data to make their case, and AGW does not have the observational data required which is why they appeal to consensus and hope that people don't understand how science is supposed to work - which you clearly do not.
The non-estimated data does NOT support AGW. Observations have been diverging from predictions for 18 years, with the computer models predicting rates of heating increase that have not been happening. Look at the damn observations, especially the superior satellite ones !
ps. and stop being a jerk to hide you ignorance of the actual data and counter-evidence against AGW. It is just lame and should be beneath all Slashdotters.
Thanks for your post. So you are saying there is no natural climate variability because the climate "stabilized to what was the current climate between 10 and 6 thousand years ago". Please define "stabilized". The Roman and Medieval Warm Periods appear to have been warmer than now, did the Roman SUVs cause that? or perhaps "stabilization" is due to sampling bias from the proxies we used.
Hi, physicist here (although I was an astrophysicist and not a climatologist). The 'feedback' effects included in the climate models are not well known - which is why best guesses are put into the simulations. The climate is a very complex and ****chaotic*** system that even the honest experts say is not as well understood as people think, and the chaotic effects limit the predictability (sure, expectation values for long-term predictions remove some of the effects if chaos, but who has quantified how much of one the most famous chaotic systems on the planet).
Have you ever seen a climate model that has made a prediction that has matched observation? I have not seen one yet, and there have been hundreds of simulations with an enormous amount of time made available on some of the most powerful computer systems on the planet. And yet, the simulations match reality so badly that I'm embarrassed for the authors who published. I used to write such complex mufti-dimensional software models and it is completely bizarre to be that people still push them as having any predictive value at this stage when even their short term (decadal) predictions have been so far off-base, and the anomalies cannot be explained.
So please. watch the video I linked to, as it shows some of the important factors that are omitted from the models. The Scientific Method requires you to evaluate every claim objectively, especially counter-claims that can falsify a theory. This is what I was required to do, and it seems to me there is a strong and increasing case against AGW based on the observational data (and the fact the simulations are so woeful they diverge from the data massively): https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
My understanding is that we are in an Interglacial Period and we would expect things to warm naturally. At the current rate of melt (159 GT/year) Antarctica will take around a quarter of a million years to melt down (given its ice mass of approx 26400000 GT). From the historical perspective this seems to be a particualrly SLOW rate of natural melting.
Over the past few millenia we've seen the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, and Little Ice Age. We are now recovering from the Little Ice Age which is why temperatures have been steadily increasing since the end of the 18th Century. Many AGW proponents (eg. Michael Mann) don't seem to want to know about the Little Ice Age nor that we would expect to see warming from natural climatic variability after it ended, exactly as we do see.
As far as I can tell these are all NATURAL processes. The AGW global warming skeptics are not denying that the world is warming, because it clearly has been since the Little Ice Age. All they are saying is that human CO2 emission is not the PRIMARY cause. This makes sense once one understands that CO2 has a diminishing non-linear effect on longwave radiation re-emission. The 'Greenhouse Effect' is essential for life, but most of the effect of CO2 occurs below 100 ppm and the effect starts dropping off after that. Note that below 150 ppm plants (and thus, complex life) cannot survive. As CO2 increases there is a positive effect on plant growth - and when the World was at 5000 ppm (we're around 400 ppm today) not only did life exist, it thrived.
But even if AGW were true, how would giving politicians complete power to regulate every aspect of your life, and to take all the income from your hard work and redistribute as they saw fit have any impact on the climate on a global scale? it just doesn't make sense if you think about it for more than a millisecond.
No time at all, all you have to do is provide the scientific evidence for this. At the moment the AGW proponents have to talk about "consensus" because the actual observational data does not support the AGW hypothesis at all. In fact, the true 'deniers' are the AGW proponents, who refuse to accept that the data does not support their hypothesis and a new hypothesis must be generated - in accordance with the Scientific Method.
Does it not seem strange that the satellite data (which is not 'adjusted' to match the theory like the increasingly estimate surface coverage data is) does not support AGW and yet the media narrative is relentless that AGW is 'settled science'. The problem is not whether AGW is true or not (on evidence, the theory seems set to be falsified at this stage), but that the media has a narrative which refuses objective reporting of the counter-evidence. This should trouble everyone who seeks to perform honest science. There is also the problem that all the predictions are based on computer models whose prior predictions have utterly failed to match observations
For those interested in the physics from a guy who literally wrote the (advanced, graduate-level) textbook on atmospheric dynamics you may wish to see Dr Murray Salby's explanation of where the climate models are wrong (warning: you need reasonably advanced mathematics/physics to follow the lecture - so only fellow science Jedi need watch):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [67 mins]
Based on the observational evidence and the historical record, it seems the only sane position to take at this moment is skepticism of the AGW theory. No one is denying the scientific effect of atmospheric CO2, or that the Earth is warming - what is under debate is the balance between natural climatic variation and human CO2 emission (vs the massive CO2 emission from the microbial biosphere, for example) and debate about the limits of predictive accuracy of computer models of a very complex and chaotic system.
As a technical writer the best and fastest system I have seen for writing manuals is called "Information Mapping". It is a system for structuring technical content so that a user can quickly navigate to the thing they need without having to read the whole manual first. It is designed to cope with the limits of human working memory, and get tasks completely quickly and accurately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Here is the commercial site (I didn't go here, but had some training from other local Information Mappers): http://www.informationmapping....
If you are a software developer you can learn the concepts in about half-a-day, and your manuals will be awesome as a result.
2) It's goal is to establish the political system of "Sharia", and Muslims don't care about your personal faith (ie. dhimmitude) as long as you are part of their political system
3) Despite the mythology, Islam is fairly close to a Mafia system. The Mafia may profess to be Catholic but that does not make their crime system religious.
Islam is NOT a personal faith, and it never claims to be. Because of this, it is a POLITICAL SYSTEM.
You can get angry all you want and swear your head off to demonstrate how irrational you are when discussing this topic. But you are still wrong.
Do you know about the *actual* history of early Islam? the political history that involves Caliph Abd al-Malik? would you like me to provide a link for you? (note: Islamic orthodoxy hides the true origins of Islam, because no-one would remain in its totalitarian political system if they understood the superstitious aspects are completely fabricated as part of a POLITICAL system of control).
In Islam there is no separation of Mosque and State. This is different to Christianity, Judaism etc but most people in the West don't understand this. They think Islam is some kind of personal faith, but it is not.
Islam is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology with a sprinkling of badly-plagiarized superstition sprinkled on top. It is political because Islam asserts authority over believers AND kuffar (a derogatory term translated as 'infidel' but closer in intent to 'n*gg3r' and applied to all non-Muslims).
Unfortunately, like most Slashdotters, you think you understand Islam and thus ignorantly swat away the argument of someone who correctly deduced that Islam is completely political. This is a bad habit and you should stop it. Please understand that you know very little about Islam and would do well to listen to those that understand it - particularly the Islamic deceptions and political nature (and for real Jedi, the fact that Islamic orthodoxy is completely false and was invented by Caliph Abd al-Malik for *political reasons* [ie. Arab Imperialism] and not Mohammed as Islam falsely claims).
So I would suggest you understand the limitations of your knowledge and *listen* to those who do understand Islam (which is the most evil and deceptive political ideology that man has ever inflicted on other men ). Thanks.